Logical Reasoning

PT118 · S3 · Q3 John: It was wrong of

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

John: It was wrong of you to blame me for that traffic accident.

Principle

someone knows action X risks consequence Y person is and → responsible for action X was consequences of X undertaken voluntarily

Evaluate / Goal

The question stem is only asking about Michiko's principle, which is her second sentence.

We just need an answer choice to establish that someone voluntarily undertook an action, and knew that their action risked a certain result. The conclusion should then say that this person is responsible for that result.

(this rule does not have the power to prove that someone is not responsible, so if we see any conclusions like that, we can immediately get rid of that answer)

3.

The principle that Michiko invokes, if established, would justify which one of the following judgments?

  1. Correct

    Colleen was responsible for missing

    Why this is right

    Do the premises (indicated by because) establish that 1. action was voluntary? 2. person knew action risked result X? Yes and Yes. Colleen knew she was risking getting to the airport late but decided to take one more trip to Eiffel. Does the conclusion hold Colleen responsible for the known risk of her action? Yes, she was responsible for getting to the airport late (and missing her flight).

    Skill tested: Principle-Conform · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

    92% picked this

  2. Colleen was responsible for having

    Bad Trigger Match

    Do the premises establish that 1. action was voluntary? 2. person knew action risked result X? Yes and No. Colleen voluntarily told her brother about the offensive comment, but she did not know she was risking getting her brother offended.

    1% picked this

  3. Colleen was responsible for her

    Bad Trigger Match

    Do the premises (indicated by because) establish that 1. action was voluntary? 2. person knew action risked result X? Unclear on both. Colleen didn't take any action. We'd be redefining "action" here as "not taking any of the recommended precautions", but that's inaction, not an action. Also, we have no idea if Colleen knew she was risking anything with her inaction, since we don't know whether she's aware of the town police's newly published manual. We don't know whether she read it, or whether it even warned of the risks of inaction.

    5% picked this

  4. Colleen was responsible for her

    Bad Trigger Match

    Do the premises (indicated by because) establish that 1. action was voluntary? 2. person knew action risked result X? No, because Colleen didn't take any action. Technically, neither did her brother. He just allowed the door to slam shut.

    1% picked this

  5. Colleen was not responsible for

    Bad Conclusion Match

    As soon as we see this conclusion is saying someone was "not responsible", it's a non-starter and we can eliminate. If a principle says X ? Y then it can only be used to conclude "Y" or to conclude "not X".

    1% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free